Sun 10 Jun 2007

Winnipeg Free Press

Soaked in 2,4-D: dousing lawns with a risky herbicide

by Penni Mitchell

FIRST, a lesson in terminology. While we tend to use the terms
interchangeably, pesticide -- strictly speaking -- is a substance used
to kill pests, including insects, while herbicides kill unwanted
vegetation, including weeds.

Second, a lesson in history. The herbicide 2,4-D was one-half of the
chemical duo responsible for Agent Orange, the secret weapon created
by Dow chemical and employed by the U.S. to strip Vietnam's trees of
their leaves so that soldiers could better see their enemy. The second
ingredient, 2,4,5-T, was taken off the market in 1983 after its links
to birth defects could no longer be ignored.

Sixty years after it was first introduced, the safety of 2,4-D, one of
the most widely used herbicides in the world, remains suspect.
Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not classified
2,4-D as a likely human carcinogen, the agency did express "concern
about its endocrine-disrupting potential" in its latest review of the
herbicide ingredient. Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency isn't
convinced it's a carcinogen either. But its new interim measures for
products containing 2,4-D contain stricter stipulations on its use and
the PMRA wants data on the chemical's micro-contaminants before a
final decision on all uses is made in accordance with Canada's new
Pest Control Products Act.

And now a lesson in chemistry. The D in 2,4-D stands for
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. When applied to broadleaf plants, it
damages the plant's cell walls and causes cells to divide rapidly. The
plants usually die. An ingredient in more than 200 herbicide products
sold in Canada, 2,4-D can also kill worms and beneficial soil
bacteria, and exposure can inhibit the maturity of exposed frog eggs.
Studies have found that exposure to herbicides containing 2,4-D can
weaken the immune system, damage the myelin sheath on nerve endings
and interfere with hormone production and reduce sperm counts.
Numerous studies found that exposing lab animals to 2,4-D was
associated with reduced litter sizes, negatively affected thyroid
health and the size of ovaries and testes. The herbicide's
carcinogenicity may be debatable, but 2,4-D is pretty good at
disrupting processes that are associated with living and reproducing.

The Sierra Club of Canada cites studies linking herbicides containing
2,4-D to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Agricultural workers using 2,4-D have
been found to have lower sperm counts and higher sperm abnormalities.
Higher rates of some birth defects have been observed in areas of
Minnesota with the highest agricultural use of 2,4-D. Workers applying
chlorinated phenoxy herbicides (a class that includes 2,4-D)
frequently report nervous system disorders. And a 1993 study of male
farmers in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan reported that prolonged
use of 2,4-D was associated with a small increase in prostate cancer.

Still, scientists are not certain whether 2,4-D is entirely to blame.
Some studies indicate that toxic by-products of 2,4-D, its impurities,
or dozens of inert ingredients used in combination with 2,4-D
herbicides are even more dangerous. Yet these same confounding
influences are among the reasons regulators say they are uncertain
about the chemical's proven effects.

Meanwhile, an environment report issued by the City of Winnipeg three
years ago observed that levels of 2,4-D were found to be "slightly
elevated in the Red River north of the city of Winnipeg, which might
suggest overuse of this pesticide." Overuse indeed. Acre for acre,
urban land is plied with 10 times the volume used on farmland. In
Canada, about 500 tons of herbicides containing 2,4-D are used each
year for non-agricultural purposes, including lawn applications,
commercial properties and golf courses. Herbicides applied on their
lawns can inadvertently be tracked inside homes where children and
pets can be further exposed on carpets for up to a year. Indoors and
outdoors, children are especially vulnerable to hormone disrupting
influences because their cells are rapidly developing. With studies
suggesting that the application of sunscreen increases the penetration
of 2,4-D by up to 60 per cent, now would be a good time to heed the
lessons of the precautionary principle and restrict its use.

More than 125 municipalities in Canada now restrict the cosmetic use
of herbicides, including 2,4-D. According to the Organic Agriculture
Centre of Canada, Canadians spent more than $1 billion last year on
certified organic foods, a 28 per cent hike compared to 2005. The
reason is abundantly clear: Canadians don't want questionable
pesticides and herbicides on their foods.

So why on earth are we still dousing them on Winnipeg lawns and public
spaces?

Penni Mitchell is managing editor of Herizons magazine.

(c) 2007 The Winnipeg Free Press. All rights reserved.


==========================


Herizons Magazine
PO Box 128
Winnipeg MB
R3C 2G1
TF: 1-888-408-0028
Email: editor@herizons.ca
http://www.herizons.ca

==========================

 Tue 12 Jun 2007

Winnipeg Free Press

The truth about 2,4-D isn't pretty

by  K. Jean Cottam

Re: Soaked in 2,4-D: dousing lawns with a risky herbicide, by Penni
Mitchell, June 10.

WHILE this attempt to tell us what 2,4-D is really about is
praiseworthy, it doesn't tell the full story and the lesson in
terminology is incorrect. Herbicides are pesticides. The word
"pesticides" is generic and includes all the "cides": herbicides,
insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides and algaecides. Therefore,
interchangeable references to pesticides and herbicides are fully
acceptable.

Indeed, 2,4,5-T was taken off the market after the horrendous results
of the secret study conducted by the EPA (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency) in western Oregon became widely known. The toxicity
of 2,4,5-T was mainly due to its contamination during manufacturing
with the most toxic dioxin TCDD. (Dying from Dioxin. Ed. Lois Marie
Gibbs. Montreal, New York, London: Black Rose Books, 1997, pp.
122-125). Dioxins are bioaccumulative -- they are passed to the next
generation. Exposure to minute quantities of dioxin is associated with
cancer, diabetes, neurological diseases, reproductive disorders and
child development problems.
In its July 11, 2003 Dioxin Reassessment, the U.S. National
Academies' (NA) National Research Council confirmed what numerous
scientific panels have concluded over the past 15 years: Dioxin is a
potent cancer-causing chemical. According to NA, "EPA did not
sufficiently quantify the uncertainties and variabilities associated
with the risks, nor did it adequately justify the assumptions used to
estimate them" (Beyond Pesticides, Dioxin Update, July 13, 2006).

However, the industry kept pretending that 2,4-D itself was dioxin-
free. Not true, as we were told as far back as the early 1990s by an
EPA whistle-blower still on staff today. More recently 2,4-D was
linked to another dioxin, DCDD, almost as toxic as TCDD.

Thus, "the chemical's micro-contaminants" mentioned in Ms. Mitchell's
contribution as information, which Health Canada's Pest Management
Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is requesting from the industry, is obviously
a reference to information on dioxin. The problem, however, is that
the PMRA is asking for data applicable to the wrong dioxin, TCDD,
associated with four chlorine atoms, rather than the dioxin recently
attributed to 2,4-D.

Neurological data

As well, the PMRA has so far failed to receive from the industry the
vital 2,4-D neurological data, and has not taken into account the
special vulnerability of children. So the PMRA intends to re-register
2,4-D despite this agency's own admission that it was lacking dioxin,
neurological and child data. 2,4-D testing is arranged and paid for by
several major chemical companies represented by the Industry's Task
Force II on 2,4-D Research Data. The testing in special labs is done
on rats. However, rats have detoxification genes missing in humans.
"The millions the Task Force pays to both agencies (EPA and PMRA) to
re-register the product results in a system that is highly
corrupt" (Jim Bender, Woodstock's Sentinel-Review, July 4, 2006).

An important shortcoming in 2,4-D's and other products' testing on
behalf of the industry is that only the so-called "active" portion of
the chemical is taken into account. The substantial formulants, also
called "inerts", are not tested. Yet, they may constitute more than 50
per cent of the tested product and may be known to cause cancer,
according to the International Agency for Research to Cancer reporting
to the World Health Organization. Strangely enough, the "inerts" may
be considered "active" in other combinations.

Here is a scenario to bear in mind: An experimental rat is exposed
momentarily to 2,4-D before it breaks down. The first breakdown
product, 2,4-dichlorophenol (2,4-DCP), is more toxic than the original
2,4-D.

So, even though, strictly speaking, 2,4-DCP is not tested on rats, it
happens to be "tested" on children and pets walking beside a recently
sprayed lawn.

The inhaled residues go directly to their brain, having bypassed the
liver which is the cleansing organ. (M. Sears et al, Protecting public
health on the home turf, in Paediatrics & Child Health 2006: 11(4);
229-234).

K. Jean Cottam is an Ottawa-based retired federal intelligence analyst
and a Canadian honorary observer with the Pesticide Working Group, a
group of concerned scientists concerned about the effects of chemicals
on the environment and human health. Its teleconferences are organized
by Beyond Pesticides, www.beyondpesticides.org.

(c) 2007 The Winnipeg Free Press. All rights reserved.

http://tinyurl.com/263ahc

===========================

Tue 12 Jun 2007

Winnipeg Free Press

Letters to the Editor

Column a masterpiece (What I said was, Bravo!!!)

Thank you so much to Penni Mitchell for the masterpiece that appeared
Sunday, Soaked in 2,4-D: dousing lawns with a risky herbicide, and
thank you to the Winnipeg Free Press for publishing it. You will never
know how many lives you have improved with that piece.

GLENDA WHITEMAN
Winnipeg

===========================